There's only One True System of measurement: the Furlong-Firkin-Fortnight system. One "foot" is very close to 1.5 millifurlongs. One "meter" is very close to 5 millifurlongs. Silly antiquated systems.
For convenience, some people still use the archaic measures: 100 millifurlongs is a "chain", and 1 millifurlong is a "link" (one link on the aforementioned surveyors chain), and 25 millifurlongs is a "rod". Much easier to say than "millifurlong".
The other standard units in the "F you" system are of course the Farad and the degree Farenheit. All units have the standard abbreviation F, which makes dimensional analysis so much easier - the answer is always "F you"!
'sides, I'd get fired for Clarksoning their UI team.
Google has a UI team now?
There's one more reason, which is that there are sometimes good reasons for writing your own sort routine. Specifically, if you have data that has a known distribution that lets you beat a comparison sort. One of the questions I was asked in a Google interview was along these lines. The point was not to see how well I could write code on a whiteboard or reproduce an algorithm from a textbook, it was to see if I could understand that the problem wasn't the same as 'sort arbitrary data', see if I could extract what properties of the problem made it amenable to optimisation, and see what tools I had for approaching that kind of optimisation.
And sometimes it's not about knowing if you can reproduce an algorithm, but about knowing whether you understand the limitations of a particular approach. Do you understand when that off-the-shelf quicksort library would do a terrible job on certain input data? In one interview, I discovered that my interviewer didn't know about hopscotch hash tables, but did know about cuckoo hashing, so we ended up with a discussion about what the overheads of the two approaches are and when either would be better.
People should be hired based on who is best for the job. Period.
If you have a mechanism for identifying, up front, who is best for a job requiring creativity and technical skill and is not subject to subconscious biases by interviewers then please let the rest of us know. I know a lot of companies that would be able to save huge amounts of money by replacing their hiring mechanisms with such a technique.
You seem obsessed with the idea that programming languages are better if they're close to English, but this is a long debunked theory so you're living in the 70s/80s on that one. If closeness to English was an overriding priority then we'd all be using COBOL.
We don't however, because regardless of closeness to English we still have to learn the syntax, and if we have to learn the syntax either way then we read code as if it is English. Anyone that knows C style syntax can read your C style example just as easily as they read plain English, and yet the VB style syntax requires you to parse a double negative which is bad English.
As such, all you're left with with VB is bug inducing double negative mindfucks, and increase unnecessary verbosity resulting in lower productivity.
It boils down to this:
"Is not equal to null"
vs.
"Is not nothing"
The former is perfect English, the latter is terrible, broken English.
The only way you can have a programming language that works with plain English is by allowing it to have a large number of keyword combinations, so that you can express "Is not nothing" as "Is something". Until you do that attempts to create a programming language in plain English are a long verified dead end.
Don't try and pretend my example was intended to be anything other than an example of VB's terrible syntax and verbosity. If I was creating a demonstration of great coding style I'd stay out of any VB discussion in the first place because VB is the antithesis of that. There is nothing readable about VB's syntax because it's broken English end to end and that gets in the way of clean syntax that can be read logically.
Have fun writing low readability code with your reduced levels of productivity if you enjoy spitting out such unnecessary verbosity if that's your thing, but don't try and pretend it's superior. There's a reason VB is hated and unpopular, and that's because it's shit for the reasons I've described here, if you think otherwise it's not because you're some super coder who just sees something no other coder gets, it's just that you're an inept VB fanboy.
The opposition party has obstructed the president 10 times as much as his own party has obstructed him? You don't say.
It's past time to stop caring about the "Democrat" or "Republican" labels! What matters is, on a critter by critter basis, which specific congresscritter is in the pockets of which specific corporations. Stop voting based on party, stop voting based on ridiculous emotional appeals about what sexual practice will be mandatory or forbidden, and pay attention to who owns the specific candidates. It's reasonably public, if we choose to care, and while every congresscritter may be owned by someone, there are plenty of corporate political agendas I don't give a fuck about (e.g., luxury taxes on yachts), and plenty that affect my life directly, and voting on that basis matters.
Yes, he did screw up: by getting things published on XSSposed.org before GroupOn fixed their issues.
You mean "thing", right? Only one, only by mistake, only for a short period of time.
I'm with the researcher on this one.
Shachar
I agree with OP.
Republians? Surely you jest. Take of the partisan hat and look at the actual data for Hillary Clinton, presumed Dem presidential candidate.
Her top 10 career donors are mostly investment banks (all the big names are there), but Time Warner and Cablevision make the top 10.
Will we get a GOP candidate not already in the pockets of investment banks and cable companies? I'm not holding my breath, but it's theoretically possible, unlike the Dem side which is already bought and paid for.
No, he's certainly right in the long term. The only source of the energy needed for earthquakes is geological, and that power source (plates moving against each other) adds energy at a fixed rate (on human timescales). It's just a matter of when and how the energy is released. Triggering it early, when it otherwise wouldn't have caused an earthquake in our lifetimes, or perhaps in humanities lifetime as a species, that you can blame on someone, but eventually that stored power is going to be released.
Anti-vaxxers are almost all upper-middle-class liberal moms. The saying is "make a heatmap of anti-vaxxers, stick a pin in the middle of a hotspot, and you've found a Whole Foods".
It's not just the right that has crazy notions, you know. It's pretty much "humans".
a) it goes Mach 1.6, and b) it's virtually impossible to detect via RADR. If both a) and b) are true it's impossible to take out with missiles (which require a target of some sort before you can fire them)
Two things. First, Mach 1.6 is not that fast relative to the speed of air-to-air missiles. Sidewinders (from 1956) travel at Mach 2.5, modern AAMs exceed Mach 4. Second, RADAR is not the only way of targeting missiles. Modern anti-aircraft weapons use a combination of RADAR, IR, and acoustic targeting. The kinds of jet engines that can get you to Mach 1.6 basically paint an enormous IR arrow in the sky with the tip at your aircraft. This was old tech a decade ago.
This will, in theory, make every other combat aircraft anyone has ever designed obsolete.
No, they're going to be made obsolete by cheap semi-autonomous drones that can be launched en mass from aircraft carriers and can handle 20G turns for evasion, which gives them a massive advantage against missiles, which have very limited turning abilities.
If you want to put yourself on the map, publish your own map.
